[kenrexford]

I suppose I am in the minority here, as I keep checking and seeing nothing except pass and 5♦ without any discussion along the lines I would expect.

2♦ was a sound overcall, I assume. Your LHO bid 3♦, a limit raise with 3+ hearts, and partner bids 4♦. What is 4♦?

What I don't do here is bid 4♦ simply because I have diamond support. That becomes the "Texas Transfer" version of a raise. 4♦ seems to invite 5♦, for one reason or another.

If the style is that 4♦ invites a sacrifice, then your analysis should focus on that aspect of the call. If the 4♦ call shows values and invites a possibly-making game, then I believe there is a forcing pass situation here.

When looking at this hand in that light, I have both top diamonds, not AQJ or KQJ, only six diamonds, I have a side King of hearts, a possible defensive value, and I have the Qx of spades, fitting well with a possible Jxx from partner. Good defensive values. Offensively, I have a full seven losers (nothing special there), with wasted values in the form of the Qx of spades. Of all the 2♦ hand types I could have, this seems most defense oriented. (I won't have the garbage hand, either.)

If this is, in fact, a forcing pass auction, partner will know my hand type from the double and can decide to declare, instead, if that seems right. Give partner something like ♠Jxx ♥Q10x ♦xxx ♣QJ10x, an awful hand, and we probably beat 4♠. Partner might even have as little as Qx in diamonds for this call, IMO and BTW. Sure, the example hand would not meet my criteria for a 4♦ call (values plus a fit), but add in some real values and the defense gets better yet.

[pclayton]

Pard never bids 5♦ here. If he had a 5♦ call he would have taken it last time. If pard thinks that we are ever 'buying' it for 4♦ he should not be playing with me.

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

Do I have the perfect hand for 5♦? Not even close. Is 800 a possibility? Sure. But I'll take insurance for 4 IMPs to see if they take the push to 5, which may be a 11-13 IMP gain. Even then, I may gain 3 (-500) or gain 7 (-300) in 5♦.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 21 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

I like that someone else views 4♦ as "consultative."

However, I'm not sure how this hand is "less defensive than average" in the context of a consultative 4♦ call. Surely the hand seems more defensive than offensive, in the sense that your expected offensive potential is much less than possible but your defensive potential is not all that far off from expectations.

The problem, however, is the context. Whereas without a consultative 4♦ call, your hand could have great defense (AJ10xxx in diamonds and two outside Aces, or an outside AK), if partner has interest in defending himself the total points spread about will mean that you are less likely to have that sort of hand.

I think that the money will pay more frequently to the boxed up second tier than to the quick trick set.

Or, the other way -- RHO will more frequently overstep, IMO, because of a lack of body and depth than because of a lack of quicks. Partner's hand will more frequently have contributions in body than in quicks, as well.

Whether this hand has great defense, great offense, great total values, lousy defense, lousy offense, or lousy total values should be analyzed more as a ratio. I cannot imagine anyone calling this a great offense-to-defense holding. If anything, it has a great defense-to-offense ratio. If parter's 4♦ call protects our description of hand type, double shows defense-to-offense.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 21 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 21 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

I like that someone else views 4♦ as "consultative."

However, I'm not sure how this hand is "less defensive than average" in the context of a consultative 4♦ call. Surely the hand seems more defensive than offensive, in the sense that your expected offensive potential is much less than possible but your defensive potential is not all that far off from expectations.

The problem, however, is the context. Whereas without a consultative 4♦ call, your hand could have great defense (AJ10xxx in diamonds and two outside Aces, or an outside AK), if partner has interest in defending himself the total points spread about will mean that you are less likely to have that sort of hand.

I think that the money will pay more frequently to the boxed up second tier than to the quick trick set.

Or, the other way -- RHO will more frequently overstep, IMO, because of a lack of body and depth than because of a lack of quicks. Partner's hand will more frequently have contributions in body than in quicks, as well.

Whether this hand has great defense, great offense, great total values, lousy defense, lousy offense, or lousy total values should be analyzed more as a ratio. I cannot imagine anyone calling this a great offense-to-defense holding. If anything, it has a great defense-to-offense ratio. If parter's 4♦ call protects our description of hand type, double shows defense-to-offense.

Good points.

I think you can drive yourself nuts trying to parse 'total defense' with ODR. This hand's ODR sucks, but that doesn't mean that it has good defense. To me, less defensive than average means we don't have QTs, and have that ugly 6th diamond. But the diamond length makes it very likely one of our opps has a stiff or void, which makes bidding 5 over 5 very likely.

We could easily have a hand in the same point range that overcalls 2♦ but likes defending: xx, Kxx, AQJxx, Qxx. Note that defending has nothing to do with QT's here - we don't mind defending because we have some possible slow tricks against 4♠ and 5♦ just rates to be unplayable.

Our black doubletons suck, but our opponents don't know that, and may think that 5♦ is so cheap that they are getting a great payoff in 5♠ when its right.

I think pard's hand is along the lines of: xx, Qxx, Qxxx, Axxx. I hate the idea of defending 4♠, but love the idea of 5♦ or 5♠.

[bid_em_up]

5♦

[pbleighton]

Quote

This is a textbook 2D overcall, I don't have anything to add.

Agree.

Peter

[Gerben42]

Quote

Color me yellow.

I'm already yellow so color me something else? I won't double, this is so making. The question is do we have 8 tricks in ♦? I will just pass.

[skjaeran]

3NT from partner would be a "garbage" raise in my methods, looking for a save, while 4♦ is constructive.

I still believe they'll make 4♠, but it's not certain. If I'm playing opponents who I think might take the push to the 5-level, I'd bid 5♦. Else I'd pass.

[neilkaz]

Very tough choice here, but I have only a normal 4♦ overcall. Although I have a 6th ♦, I have lots of likely losers including a likely worthless Q of ♠. I'd carry on to 5♦ at MPs where -500 beats -600 nicely and where the opps are more likely to push on to 5♠ than at IMPs.

However, at IMPs vs sane opps (who won't charge willy-nilly into 5♠ on momentum) I somewhat prefer to pass as my hand is too flat.

Perhaps PD has the right cards and a K is onside or something and 4♠ is -1,and that is a huge gain over 5♦x where I expect we're off 3 tricks most of the time.

.. neilkaz ,,

[sathyab]

pclayton, on Jun 21 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

Pard never bids 5♦ here. If he had a 5♦ call he would have taken it last time. If pard thinks that we are ever 'buying' it for 4♦ he should not be playing with me.

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

Do I have the perfect hand for 5♦? Not even close. Is 800 a possibility? Sure. But I'll take insurance for 4 IMPs to see if they take the push to 5, which may be a 11-13 IMP gain. Even then, I may gain 3 (-500) or gain 7 (-300) in 5♦.

In total agrrement with your arguments here Phil. Partner has already bid his more or less, if anyone should be taking action it's you now. This is not a sequence where partner gets to make the final guess/error, it's got to be you. It's not as though he made a waiting bid of 4d to either buy the hand at 4d (dream on) or to just give you a chance to double their 4s, failing which he was prepared to bid 5d.

[FrancesHinden]

OK, this debate seems to be about what a 4D bid shows.
To my mind 4D says:

- I don't have diamonds and hearts (I'd bid 3H)
- I don't have diamonds and clubs (I'd bid 4C)
- I don't have diamonds and high cards (I'd bid 3S)
- I don't want to bid 5D unilaterally, I want to hear your opinion.

So, yes, consultative in that sense.


But he is certainly allowed to bid 5D in the pass-out seat. One reason to bid 4D the first time is a concern that partner might be about to double 4S - perhaps the 4D bidder has very short spades as well as external high cards - when partner doesn't double 4S, if he knows a save will be cheap, he will save. Pretty rare, I agree, and I agree that we are probably making the final decision (and we are certainly making the final decision if we think for a long time first).

Anyway, back to the problem. What does a 4D bid look like? I expect 4-card diamond support, scattered high cards and not a great deal of distribution. Or rather, if he has a great deal of distribution he's going to bid 5D anyway.

I think he's got a doubleton spade a lot of the time (or even 3 spades). A singleton and 4-card support is quite likely to save whatever, unless he thinks we're beating 4S. That means we are likely -500.

OK, I don't think it's a big deal either way. Maybe I'm being persuaded to bid 5d confidently because I don't see 4S going off so it can't be too far wrong.

(doubling 4S here is about a good a call as opening 4H in 2nd seat on - QJ109xxx Qx AKxx).

[Apollo81]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

(doubling 4S here is about a good a call as opening 4H in 2nd seat on - QJ109xxx Qx AKxx).

This is ridiculous. Doubling 4♠ here has almost no chance to succeed. Opening 4♥ on that hand may not be a great call but it sure could generate a positive swing if you catch a nice combination of hands.

[Apollo81]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

OK, this debate seems to be about what a 4D bid shows.
To my mind 4D says:

- I don't have diamonds and hearts (I'd bid 3H)
- I don't have diamonds and clubs (I'd bid 4C)
- I don't have diamonds and high cards (I'd bid 3S)
- I don't want to bid 5D unilaterally, I want to hear your opinion.

So, yes, consultative in that sense.

Right, I think it comes down to whether you have extra offense for your bid or not and a lot of that depends on your overcalling style.

[pclayton]

Frances: I don't think the lack of a double (i.e., pass) of 4♠ translates into, "pard, I'm not sure what to do here, go ahead and make the last guess". Pass can mean many things, including:

1. I'm not sure we can beat 4♠
2. I think 5♦ is too expensive

and even:

3. I don't want you pulling my darn double, since you have zero defense.

When the opps have shown the balance of power (many would say they are in a forcing pass at these colors with a limit + raise) I can't ever remembering doubling them, unless of course I thought they could make slam.

After 4♦, I'll stick to, "its my decision to sac, pass or double". I think partner has completed relinquished capitaincy.

I like Harald's argument about the use of 3N. I think many strong pairs play it, and it lends clarification to 4♦. At these colors, I think its less useful, since rarely is pard bidding 4♦ on power.

[bhall]

Nobody has mentioned advancer's responsibilities here. He did not have to bid 4♦, and he must be bright enough to realize that 4♠ is the most likely next bid by opener. So he should already have a very good idea about what to do if the auction continues 4♠-P-P back to him. With no special message to give him, I say *don't* get in his way!

[mike777]

It seems bidding 5D is the same as doubling down on our bet.

Partner with 4D and an outside Ace at this vul choose to bid 4D not 5D. She bet that:
1) She might buy it for 4D
2) Partner has extra shape or extra something to bid 5D
3) The opp would not bid 4H
4) If the opp bid 4H and partner passes we might beat it.

It seems both partner and I gave it our shot, the opp are in 4H, lets defend and move on to the next hand. Why reload and shoot again with nothing extra or special?

BTW I think FTL says we may only go for 500 here vs 620
13-4-1=8 tricks.
13=total given tricks
-4=assumed two combined shortest suits.
-1=assume 16 working hcp.

Look forward to seeing the actual hands and how close my FTL guess is.

[kenrexford]

bhall, on Jun 21 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

Nobody has mentioned advancer's responsibilities here. He did not have to bid 4♦, and he must be bright enough to realize that 4♠ is the most likely next bid by opener. So he should already have a very good idea about what to do if the auction continues 4♠-P-P back to him. With no special message to give him, I say *don't* get in his way!

Yeah, see, that is the crux of the argument that I'm making for doubling.

I do not agree that 4♦ shows four pieces. As can easily be assessed, 4♦ is quite a bid. It virtually assures us that the opponents will bid 4♥ without us knowing whether they bid 4♥ because they want us to sacrifice, because they think they might possibly make it, because they were going to bid it anyway, or because they don't quite have the space for a slam try and are being practical.

Advancer does, therefore, have responsibilities. He has several ways to describe diamond support, including a double of 3♦, 4♦, 5♦, and 3NT. New suit calls probably also agree diamonds. You also have 3♥ available.

So, what is 4♦?

Just saying "consultative" without more begs the question of how we are supposed to provide that consultation. The way I play, and the way others seem to play, 4♦ establishes ownership of the four-level, in a sense. 4♦ shows something between defense of 4♠ and playing 5♦, with an expectation that 4♦ would make or be set one. If so, it seems to establish a forcing pass situation. If 4♦ creates a forcing pass situation, then passing out 4♠ undoubled is not possible. Requiring me to decide, rather than allowing me to describe three types (clear double, clear bid, undecided pass) by whatever "definitions" those types have, seems overly limiting on 4♦ and rather impractical if 4♦ cannot be precisely defined (I have not yet seen any practical definition of 4♦ sufficient to allow me unfettered discretion).

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 21 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Maybe I'm being persuaded to bid 5d confidently because I don't see 4S going off so it can't be too far wrong.

I bid an insta 5D hoping to get a 5S bid out of them, but I really regretted it later and wish I would have thought for a while and passed.

OK, so what happened? Who had what? Spill it!

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jun 21 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 21 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

Maybe I'm being persuaded to bid 5d confidently because I don't see 4S going off so it can't be too far wrong.

I bid an insta 5D hoping to get a 5S bid out of them, but I really regretted it later and wish I would have thought for a while and passed.

If you are going to bid 5♦, it makes sense to do it quickly.. the idea, of course, is to sound like a player looking at a stiff ♠.

My gut reaction was to pass the hand, but I confess that the more comments I read, the more I was leaning towards the quick 5♦ I'm glad I was so late to the thread that I don't have to post that choice.....

The truth is that most good opps don't take pushes to the 5-level except on unusual hands: they take the money against your save. Not only that, but good opps at this heat will have bid 4♠ with no real assurance that they are making, because not only do they have the good imp odds for bidding a thin game, but they also have the very significant odds that the opps will bid a phantom on momentum.